Annie Hoey (Labour) | Oireachtas source

The reason I came in to join with my colleague on this issue is that I took some time today to speak to some people who are survivors of domestic violence. Obviously, we tabled our amendment because we felt it was meaningful and worthwhile. I am speaking to amendment No. 4, which, as my colleague said, for all intents and purposes, is the same amendment as amendment No. 5. As people gave of their time to speak to me and to share their experiences, what they wanted to see come out of this legislation and how they believed this legislation would have impacted them had it been around when they were experiencing this, I felt I needed to speak on this.

The main message I got was that any legislation we enact or anything we do cannot put victims in further jeopardy. It must always be about underpinning support for those victims and support for people who are leaving the situation. As we all know, getting to the stage of leaving that situation can take quite some time. It can take an enormous toll on the victim, on their family and often on their children. The people I spoke to felt that 70% of pay was not looking at this from a compassionate perspective. They also spoke about the ten days, the amount of time they would have, etc.

Some people will not be able to afford to be on 70% of pay. They are already faced with leaving a situation. A person I spoke to talked about financial abuse being a key element of what happens in a domestic violence situation. Of those leaving their family situation because of domestic violence, the figure I was given was that 70% will also be experiencing financial abuse. They are already at a financial disadvantage. They are already stepping away from their financial unit. I do not see how we can stand over saying that they should only get 70% of what they would have had before. The women I spoke to said they do not see how we can stand over that. It would be a disincentive to avail of it because they do not believe they would be able to financially survive on 70% of what they have.

What comes with leaving such a situation are legal fees, counselling and accommodation, all of which are prohibitively expensive. Many of these women will be leaving with children which, obviously, increases the costs significantly. Women who are experiencing domestic violence are also likely to suffer from loss of earnings due to taking sick leave and all of the other elements that come with that.

I felt it was important for me to speak given that these women took the time to speak to me about the impact of this legislation and how they felt we should pass legislation that is not fit for purpose.They feel that 70% provision, as it currently stands in the Bill, is not fit for purpose. I am jumping between two amendments because ours was ruled out of order. They spoke to me beforehand and I thought it was important to come before the House and say they wanted this legislation to be fit for purpose and not to be a disincentive. Everything has to be underpinned from the perspective of ensuring the woman is safe, meaning that she is physically safe, that she is safe in accommodation, and that she is financially safe and is not at a financial loss for whatever reason. We have to make sure the legislation underpins that. I ask the Acting Chair to forgive me if I am jumping between two amendments.